home
RSS
My Take: Are evangelicals dangerous?
Many evangelicals want to ban abortion, but does that mean they want theocracy?
October 15th, 2011
10:00 PM ET

My Take: Are evangelicals dangerous?

Editor's Note: R. Albert Mohler, Jr., is president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, the flagship school of the Southern Baptist Convention and one of the largest seminaries in the world.

By R. Albert Mohler, Jr., Special to CNN

Here we go again.

Every four years, with every new presidential election cycle, public voices sound the alarm that the evangelicals are back. What is so scary about America’s evangelical Christians?

Just a few years ago, author Kevin Phillips told intellectual elites to run for cover, claiming that well-organized evangelicals were attempting to turn America into a theocratic state. In “American Theocracy,” Phillips warned of the growing influence of Bible-believing, born-again, theologically conservative voters who were determined to create a theocracy.

Writer Michelle Goldberg, meanwhile, has warned of a new Christian nationalism, based in “dominion theology.” Chris Hedges topped that by calling conservative Christians “American fascists.”

And so-called New Atheists like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris claim that conservative Christians are nothing less than a threat to democracy. They prescribe atheism and secularism as the antidotes.

This presidential cycle, the alarms have started earlier than usual. Ryan Lizza, profiling Rep. Michele Bachmann for The New Yorker, informed his readers that “Bachmann belongs to a generation of Christian conservatives whose views have been shaped by institutions, tracts, and leaders not commonly known to secular Americans, or even to most Christians.”

Change just a few strategic words and the same would be true of Barack Obama or any other presidential candidate. Every candidate is shaped by influences not known to all and by institutions that other Americans might find strange.

What stories like this really show is that the secular elites assume that their own institutions and leaders are normative.

The New Yorker accused Bachmann of being concerned with developing a Christian worldview, ignoring the fact that every thinking person operates out of some kind of worldview. The article treated statements about wifely submission to husbands and Christian influence in art as bizarre and bellicose.

When Rick Perry questioned the theory of evolution, Dawkins launched into full-on apoplexy, wondering aloud how anyone who questions evolution could be considered intelligent, even as polls indicate that a majority of Americans question evolution.

Bill Keller, then executive editor of The New York Times, topped all the rest by seeming to suggest that conservative Christians should be compared to those who believe in space aliens. He complained that “when it comes to the religious beliefs of our would-be presidents, we are a little squeamish about probing too aggressively.”

Really? Earlier this month, comedian Penn Jillette - a well–known atheist - wrote a very serious op-ed complaining of the political influence of “bugnut Christians,” in the pages of The Los Angeles Times, no less. Detect a pattern here?

By now, this is probably being read as a complaint against the secular elites and prominent voices in the mainstream media. It’s not.

If evangelicals intend to engage public issues and cultural concerns, we have to be ready for the scrutiny and discomfort that comes with disagreement over matters of importance. We have to risk being misunderstood - and even misrepresented - if we intend to say anything worth hearing.

Are evangelicals dangerous? Well, certainly not in the sense that more secular voices warn. The vast majority of evangelicals are not attempting to create a theocracy, or to oppose democracy.

To the contrary, evangelicals are dangerous to the secularist vision of this nation and its future precisely because we are committed to participatory democracy.

As Christians committed to the Bible, evangelicals have learned to advocate on behalf of the unborn, believing that every single human being, at every stage of development, is made in God’s image.

Evangelicals worry about the fate of marriage and the family, believing that the pattern for human relatedness set out in Scripture will lead to the greatest human flourishing.

We are deeply concerned about a host of moral and cultural issues, from how to address poverty to how to be good stewards of the earth, and on some of these there is a fairly high degree of disagreement even among us.

Above all, evangelicals are those who believe that Jesus Christ is Lord and are most concerned about telling others about Jesus. Most of America’s evangelical Christians are busy raising their children, working to support their families and investing energy in their local churches.

But over recent decades, evangelical Christians have learned that the gospel has implications for every dimension of life, including our political responsibility.

We’re dangerous only to those who want more secular voices to have a virtual monopoly in public life.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of R. Albert Mohler, Jr.

- CNN Belief Blog

Filed under: Christianity • Opinion • Politics

soundoff (5,318 Responses)
  1. Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

    Funny how the group of wise men Chad quotes wrote their words at a time when abortion was publicly advertised, yet the "wise men" didn't create any laws against it. Nor did they see fit to mention anything about the practice or about fetuses.

    They WERE 'wise'; much wiser than Chaddy and his bud, Mark.

    October 21, 2011 at 8:51 am |
  2. Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

    And of course, Chad resorts to the ridiculous argument that a baby is just as dependent as a fetus, therefore a fetus has the same rights.

    Last time I checked, Chaddy honey, nobody else could give a fetus a bottle of formula. Being dependent on the woman's body means that the fetus cannot survive outside it. Infants can.

    Really, if you are going to attempt to argue, take your Ritalin.

    October 21, 2011 at 8:46 am |
    • Chad

      @ Tom "Being dependent on the woman's body means that the fetus cannot survive outside it. Infants can. "

      not sure what your logic is, an unborn child can survive outside the mothers body as early as 3-4 month's after conception. That number continues to decrease as the state of medical care improves.

      A child must be cared for from conception until perhaps 3-4 years old perhaps, it's just the level of care that decreases over time, not the need for it. If you leave a 2 year old child unattended, he/she will die.

      October 21, 2011 at 8:59 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Still looking for evidence that any fetus has survived when delivered at 12 weeks, Chad? You just get right on that, dear.

      October 21, 2011 at 10:03 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      If you're not doing anything to assist in the care of unplanned, unwanted children, you have no business insisting that anyone else, including the pregnant woman, do so either.

      You want to force women to do what you can't and won't.

      October 21, 2011 at 11:06 am |
  3. Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

    All life is NOT "sacred", Chad. You simply believe that it is. You claim that pregnancy is a "unique" situation, when in fact, that is simply your belief, not fact. The unborn victims act does not apply to abortion because women have rights to make their own choices. You don't get to choose for them. Your assertion that medical technology will make the age of viability continue to drop ad infinitum bespeaks a lack of any understanding of biology.

    I wonder how old you are, Chaddy, and how many unwanted children you are fostering or have adopted. Why don't you answer that? After all, if their lives are "sacred", then you would certainly be supporting them, wouldn't you? Aren't you?
    How many single mothers are you assisting? Do you offer to care for their children so they can go to work? Do you contribute money toward their children's care and education?

    October 21, 2011 at 8:42 am |
    • Chad

      @Tom "All life is NOT "sacred"
      =>Instead of arguing against it, I"ll just let your statement stand as reflective of a viewpoint of the majority of atheists.

      "You claim that pregnancy is a "unique" situation, when in fact, that is simply your belief, not fact. "
      =>pregnancy isnt unique? LOL

      "Your assertion that medical technology will make the age of viability continue to drop ad infinitum bespeaks a lack of any understanding of biology."
      =>really? lol..

      October 21, 2011 at 9:08 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Yeah, lol. Read the two posts I made regarding your little "lol".

      October 21, 2011 at 10:00 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Of course it's not unique, you twit. If it were, there wouldn't be people here on earth. Sheesh, what a dolt.

      By the way, I've never said I was an atheist. Do you think that people who believe in god don't believe a woman has a right to choose what is best for her?

      Now it's my turn to LOL.

      October 21, 2011 at 10:05 am |
  4. Simon

    Talullah, you said to Mark:

    "Mark, the flat truth is that human life really isn't that precious."

    I (Simon) Says, your views reflect of what you are. You have just set yourself as well as your fellow atheists a perfect example through your statement that I quoted above.

    That "truth" you were referring is absolutely and exclusively for you and to all atheist like you.

    You don't even have (a life) it either.

    October 21, 2011 at 4:39 am |
    • Simon

      *say

      October 21, 2011 at 4:40 am |
  5. HypocrAtheist

    "Funny how you concede that a tumor has no legal rights because the legal system gives it none,"

    It exactly same way goes with your brain Tom Tom, coz your brain is nothing more than a tumor, it's oozing but not working.

    Oh wait....You've got a butthole on your forehead! Interesting!

    October 21, 2011 at 4:15 am |
  6. Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

    Funny how you concede that a tumor has no legal rights because the legal system gives it none, yet you seem blind to the fact that the same is true of a fetus. Fetuses have no legal rights; women do. That's why the 'unborn victims' act excludes abortion-because the choice is the woman's. If someone else removes that choice from her by inflicting harm on HER fetus against HER will, it's a crime. If she choose the end HER pregnancy, it's legal.

    Get it? Not someone else's choice. HERS.

    October 20, 2011 at 10:04 pm |
    • Chad

      Indeed, fetuses do have legal rights:

      The Unborn Victims of Violence Act is a United States law introduced into congress in 1999 which defines violent assault committed against pregnant women as being a crime against two victims: the woman and the fetus she carries.

      In 2002, U.S. President George W. Bush announced a plan to ensure health care coverage for fetuses under the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)

      Cornelia Whitner of Central, South Carolina pled guilty in 1992 to a charge of criminal child neglect after she was discovered to have used cocaine while pregnant. Sentenced to eight years in prison, she pet itioned the Court of Appeals 16 months later, claiming that she had been given ineffective counsel because her lawyer had failed to inform her that the charges laid against her might not be applicable given the legal status of a fetus. However, in the 1997 case Whitner v. South Carolina, the Supreme Court of South Carolina upheld its prosecution of Whitner.

      Melissa Ann Rowland of Salt Lake City, Utah was charged with murder in 2004 after her refusal to undergo a caesarean section resulted in one of the two in her twin pregnancy being stillborn. Rowland was later sentenced to 18 months probation as a result of secondary charge of child endangerment

      Did you forget to take your medicine this morning? 🙂

      October 20, 2011 at 11:01 pm |
    • Chad

      Thirty-five states currently recognize the "unborn child" or fetus as a homicide victim, and 25 of those states apply this principle throughout the period of pre-natal development.

      If you kill the unborn child of a women, you will be tried for murder.

      If the mother kills the child, there is no (legal) crime being committed.

      A few examples of legislation recognizing the legal rights of unborn children
      Alabama: Legislation taking effect July 1, 2006 (HB 19) amended Section 13A-6-1 of the Code of Alabama to include "an unborn child in utero at any stage of development, regardless of viability" as a "person" and "human being" for purposes of the state laws dealing with murder, manslaughter, criminally negligent homicide, and assault.

      Alaska: Alaska Statutes 11.41 (as amended by Senate Bill 20, enacted June 16, 2006) establishes the crimes of "murder of an unborn child," "manslaughter of an unborn child," "criminally negligent homicide of an unborn child," and "assault of an unborn child." Alaska Statutes 11.81.900(b) defines "unborn child" as "a member of species Ho mo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."

      Arizona: The "unborn child in the womb at any stage of its development" is fully covered by the state's murder and manslaughter statutes. For purposes of establishing the level of punishment, a victim who is "an unborn child shall be treated like a minor who is under twelve years of age." Senate Bill 1052, signed into law on April 25, 2005, amending the following sections of the Arizona Revised Statutes: 13-604, 13-604.01, 13-703, 13-1102, 13-1103, 13-1104, 13-1105, 13-4062, 31-412, 41-1604.11 and 41-1604.13.

      Georgia: Legislation taking effect July 1, 2006 (SB 77) recognizes an "unborn child" (defined as "a member of the species ho mo sapiens at any stage of development who is carried in the womb") as a victim of the offenses of feticide, voluntary manslaughter of an unborn child, assault of an unborn child, and battery of an unborn child. (Official Code of Georgia Annotated, Sections 16-5-20, 16-5-28, 16-5-29, 16-5-80)
      Legislation (SB 529) taking effect July 1, 2008 recognizes the crimes of "feticide by vehicle" in the first and second degree. (Section 40-6-393.1)

      see complete list at http://www.nrlc.org/unborn_victims/Statehomicidelaws092302.html

      October 20, 2011 at 11:18 pm |
    • Reality

      Why so many unplanned pregnancies?????

      "Facts on Contraceptive Use

      http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_contr_use.html
      January 2008

      "WHO NEEDS CONTRACEPTIVES?

      • 62 million U.S. women (and men?) are in their childbearing years (15–44).[1]

      • 43 million women (and men) of reproductive age, or 7 in 10, are se-xually active and do not want to become pregnant, but could become pregnant if they or their partners fail to use a con-traceptive method.[2]

      • The typical U.S. woman (man?) wants only 2 children. To achieve this goal, she (he?) must use cont-raceptives for roughly 3 decades.[3]

      WHO USES CON-TRACEPTIVES?

      • Virtually all women (98%) aged 15–44 who have ever had int-ercourse have used at least one con-traceptive method.[2](and men?)

      • Overall, 62% of the 62 million women aged 15–44 are currently using one.[2] (and men)

      • 31% of the 62 million women (and men?) do not need a method because they are infertile; are pregnant, postpartum or trying to become pregnant; have never had inte-rcourse; or are not se-xually active.[2]

      • Thus, only 7% of women aged 15–44 are at risk of unwanted pregnancy but are not using con-traceptives.[2] (and men?)

      • Among the 42 million fertile, s-exually active women who do not want to become pregnant, 89% are practicing con-traception.[2] (and men?)

      WHICH METHODS DO WOMEN (men?) USE?

      • 64% of reproductive-age women who practice con-traception use reversible methods, such as oral con-traceptives or condoms. The remaining women rely on female or male sterilization.[2]

      FIRST-YEAR CON-TRACEPTIVE FAILURE RATES

      Percentage of women (men?) experiencing an unintended pregnancy (a few examples)

      Method Typical

      Pill (combined) 8.7
      Tubal sterilization 0.7
      Male condom 17.4
      Vasectomy 0.2

      Periodic abstinence 25.3
      Calendar 9.0
      Ovulation Method 3.0
      Sympto-thermal 2.0
      Post-ovulation 1.0

      No method 85.0"

      (Abstinence) 0

      (Masturbation) 0

      More facts about contraceptives from

      guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_contr_use.html

      "CON-TRACEPTIVE METHOD CHOICE

      Cont-raceptive method use among U.S. women who practice con-traception, 2002

      Method No. of users (in 000s) % of users
      Pill 11,661 30.6
      Male condom 6,841 18.0 "

      i.e.
      The pill fails to protect women 8.7% during the first year of use (from the same reference previously shown).

      i.e. 0.087 (failure rate)
      x 62 million (# child bearing women)
      x 0.62 ( % of these women using contraception )
      x 0.306 ( % of these using the pill) =

      1,020,000 unplanned pregnancies
      during the first year of pill use.

      For male condoms (failure rate of 17.4 and 18% use level)

      1,200,000 unplanned pregnancies during the first year of male condom use.

      The Gut-tmacher Inst-itute (same reference) notes also that the perfect use of the pill should result in a 0.3% failure rate
      (35,000 unplanned pregnancies) and for the male condom, a 2% failure rate (138,000 unplanned pregnancies).

      o Conclusion: The failures of the widely used birth "control" methods i.e. the pill and male condom have led to the large rate of abortions and S-TDs in the USA. Men and women must either recognize their responsibilities by using the pill or condoms properly and/or use other safer methods in order to reduce the epidemics of abortion and S-TDs.

      October 20, 2011 at 11:53 pm |
  7. Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

    I wonder, Chad, you little boy, who do you think should be in charge of deciding whose rights prevail when those of a woman and the fetus she is carrying conflict? A judge? You? God?

    You numbskull. You wouldn't allow a judge to tell you that you had to donate an organ to your brother because he'd die without it, would you?

    The choice of whether or not to continue a pregnancy will always be that of the woman who bears the risk of pregnancy and childbirth.

    As I said, you figure out how to get yourself a fetus and you can do as you choose. Otherwise, you're just wasting your time. You have no case.

    October 20, 2011 at 9:59 pm |
    • Chad

      A mothers rights conflict with a childs rights all the time and the rule of law is applied to those disputes, just like any other conflict.

      Every day 3600 unborn babies are murdered.

      October 20, 2011 at 11:06 pm |
    • tallulah13

      Chad, if they aren't viable, they aren't "unborn" babies. That's just using inflammatory rhetoric to portray women as villains. There are roughly 13,000 abortion performed per year as a consequence of ra.pe. Do you want to tell one of those women that you intend to victimize her further by making her carry the child of the man who violated her? If so, you are no better than that rap'ist.

      October 21, 2011 at 12:10 am |
    • HotAirAce

      And 70% of the mothers are believers...

      October 21, 2011 at 12:21 am |
    • Mark from Middle River

      >>>"That's just using inflammatory rhetoric"

      R O F L ... Tall' you, me, and most of the bloggers on this site have used that weapon in our toolbox to try to win an exchange.

      Do not make it look like Chad is the first or the last on either side to use such.

      October 21, 2011 at 1:12 am |
    • Chad

      @tallulah13 "Chad, if they aren't viable, they aren't "unborn" babies."
      =>I would disagree, just because a baby cant survive on it's own outside the female body doesnt mean it has no rights. A baby cant survive on it's own after birth until probably 3 years old, it is completely dependent on others for care. Are you arguing that until a child can survive on it's own it has no rights?
      As medical care continues to improve, the age at which an unborn child can survive outside the mothers body continues to decrease. Are you suggesting that abortion doctors deliver the child and watch to see if it survives, if not it's a successful abortion? In any case, a humans rights are not dependent on the state of medical care.

      "There are roughly 13,000 abortion performed per year as a consequence of ra.pe. Do you want to tell one of those women that you intend to victimize her further by making her carry the child of the man who violated her? "
      =>ra pe is a terrible crime, killing the unborn child doesnt make that crime go away. That child, however conceived, has rights that must be respected.

      As for "inflammatory rhetoric", abortion is a violent crime committed on an innocent human. The child was alive, now he/she is dead, the corpse tossed in the garbage. 3600 times a day. Unbelievable.

      October 21, 2011 at 8:25 am |
    • MarkinFL

      There are even more "natural" miscarriages, so I guess God is the single most prolific abortionist. Also, there is no way to ever come to an agreement in this debate. You choose to believe that a fetus is automatically a full person. Most of us do not. That gap will \probably never be bridged.
      BTW, how many funerals for miscarriages have you attended? Why so few? Why do not even the most vociferous pro-lifers treat a miscarriage as just an unfortunate event for the parents? What about that oh so important child? No service, no nothing?

      October 21, 2011 at 8:56 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      No SS number, can't be declared as a tax deduction, either.

      October 21, 2011 at 10:07 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      "Mothers' rights and children's rights conflict all the time." Yeah, Chad, they do. And because children have legal rights, such conflicts are decided by law. Let me know when a fetus hires an attorney to sue a woman.

      Abortion isn't fetal homicide.

      October 21, 2011 at 10:11 am |
  8. Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

    I do think it's amusing when men like Chad and his buddy Mark attempt to make laws fit their idea of morality. Laws don't enforce your brand of morality in this country. They are in place to protect the rights of people, not fetuses.

    I don't believe abortion to be immoral. Why should your view hold sway, particularly when YOU will never have any reason to consider an abortion, you morons?

    October 20, 2011 at 9:53 pm |
    • tallulah13

      Thank you, Tom.

      These christian guys like to think that women should be subject to their beliefs, but when you ask them what punishment they plan for the men who father unwanted children, they never seem to have an answer.

      October 21, 2011 at 12:31 am |
    • Mark from Middle River

      >>>”I do think it's amusing when men like Chad and his buddy Mark attempt to make laws fit their idea of morality.”

      Wow, its not like umm.... pretty much everyone does that Tom' Tom.. Everyone believes that their views or ideas are morally sound. Why is it that all of sudden you think that just because we disagree with you that we should not be awarded the same conditions that others are. If I am a environmentalist and I go to Congress and attempt to pass laws that I feel will save our planet am I not acting on what I feel is the morally right thing to do? That is all I know I want and I am pretty sure that your Pro-Choice view you feel is morally right.

      On Dictionary.com they list the word “moral” as:

      1. of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral att'itudes.

      2. expressing or conveying truths or counsel as to right conduct, as a speaker or a literary work; moralizing: a moral novel.

      3. founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom: moral obligations.

      4. capable of conforming to the rules of right conduct: a moral being.

      5. conforming to the rules of right conduct (opposed to immoral): a moral man.

      See Tom ' Tom, morals does not just pertain to the Religious and Faithful of society. It is a term for everyone that has a opinion on any subject for the betterment of society. You feel it is the moral thing that abortions should continue to happen. Can I not believe that it is morally wrong?

      >>>”Laws don't enforce your brand of morality in this country. “

      Tell that to the places in the country that you have to wear a seatbelt. Motorcycle riders have to wear a helmets, Cigarette smokers who can not even go out into the wilderness of a national park and smoke a cigarette. Trans-fats.... Super-sized meals.... I hear that in California they are trying to ban the sale of black cars because they absorb to much heat and cause people to use their A/C more while they are driving. Tom ' Tom, what country have you been living in, people have been forcing their own brand of Morality since the South fired on Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor. 🙂

      >>>”I don't believe abortion to be immoral.”
      I do.

      >>>”Why should your view hold sway, particularly when YOU will never have any reason to consider an abortion”
      Because, all life is sacred. I am also Anti-Death Penalty and probably of the few Republicans on this planet that felt a be uneasy about what happened in Libya yesterday. To me it is a human baby and with Medical tech pushing the viability of a baby outside of a mother's womb closer and closer to conception, I feel its just a matter of time. 🙂

      October 21, 2011 at 1:31 am |
    • tallulah13

      Mark, the flat truth is that human life really isn't that precious. The planet is already overpopulated. You see it every day in the news: Children being murdered by parents or step parents. Or foster parents. Why do you think it's a good idea to further burden a system that is already failing? It seems to me that you are more interested in protecting fetuses than you are in protecting living, breathing children, or in the rights of women.

      October 21, 2011 at 2:19 am |
    • Mark from Middle River

      >>>”The planet is already overpopulated. You see it every day in the news: Children being murdered by parents or step parents. Or foster parents. Why do you think it's a good idea to further burden a system that is already failing?”

      Tall', now a bit ago I put forth the idea of sterilization and government permission to have a child, but once folks talk about overpopulation and children burdening the system... I feel that you are on the path to eclipse my idea.

      >>>”Mark, the flat truth is that human life really isn't that precious. “

      I gotta disagree on that. I hold on to John 8:7 and I just really feel that God gave us all our time on Earth and we will never know what impact each of us will have on others in society. Some good and some bad.

      October 21, 2011 at 3:17 am |
    • Tallulah13

      Well, Mark, I believe that ho. mo sapiens is a very successful species with a population that is rapidly exceeding the ability of the planet to sustain it. Without intelligent population control, humanity is going to "special" itself into extinction, and probably take most of the other more advanced species with it. Frankly, I don't trust the mythology of bronze age men to save us from that likelihood.

      October 21, 2011 at 3:28 am |
    • Chad

      tallulah13 "human life really isn't that precious"

      Incorrect.
      A wise group of men once penned: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"

      October 21, 2011 at 8:32 am |
    • Chad

      @tallulah13

      Regarding using abortion as population control (as you suggest), insane and irrational on several levels:
      – we have no population control issue in the US, are we seeing famine?
      – In countries that are seeing famine, are you suggesting that murdering people is the proper response?
      – Its a guarantee that one of your ancestors survived a famine, would you have wanted them killed to alleviate it?
      – people spend 10's of thousands of dollars to adopt children, long waiting lists exist everywhere.

      killing those that cant defend themselves... unbelievable.

      October 21, 2011 at 8:47 am |
    • Tallulah13

      So Chad, a woman has no right to that American equality? And since when is birth control equivalent to murder? Condoms, birth control pills, the morning after pill... Do any of these ring a bell? I have never said abortion is he first choice, but it must remain available because sometimes it's the only solution.

      There may be a waiting list for adoptions, but that doesn't help the hundred of thousands of kids already in foster care. Are they less important than unviable fetuses? Why do you seek to add to the already vast number of "unwanted" children?

      Finally, the words of humans cannot change the reality of overpopulation Resouces are finite. Unless we reduce the population of this planet, nature wil do it for us.

      October 21, 2011 at 9:49 am |
  9. Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

    Wrong yet again, dear Chad. The "unborn victim" is not applicable in the case of abortion. Nice try, dude.

    Fetuses have no more rights than do tumors.

    Good luck with your career in law, honey. You'll need it.

    You can rail and spew all you want, chad, but the facts are very clear: women have legal rights that fetuses do not. As they should, Don't like it? Grow a uterus and carry your own fetus. Otherwise, you have no say whatsoever.

    October 20, 2011 at 9:51 pm |
    • Chad

      Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son "Wrong yet again, dear Chad. The "unborn victim" is not applicable in the case of abortion"

      That's not accurate, abortion is "excepted" from the law. An exception operates to take something out of a thing granted that would otherwise pass or be included.

      Had abortion not been excepted, it would have been made illegal by the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. The need for an express exception proves it was applicable by definition.

      October 20, 2011 at 11:24 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      It's "excepted" because the woman who is carrying the fetus has bodily autonomy. She can decide whether to terminate or continue the pregnancy–it isn't within the rights of anyone else to make that choice FOR HER. The exception was made to prevent anti-choice zealots from infringing on HER rights.

      By the way, found evidence of that 12-week-old fetus that was "viable"? Where? In a tabloid?

      October 21, 2011 at 10:59 am |
  10. Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

    People like Chad imagine that they actually should have a say as to what medical procedures a third party ought to be permitted to have. They believe that a fetus should be considered a person with equal rights, but never can quite figure out how that's going to work when the rights of the fetus, if it had any, are in conflict with the rights of the pregnant women, who does.

    They never can quite put themselves in such a situation. Perhaps if they imagined what it would be like if a tumor in their own bodies had "rights" to life that those "rights" had to be "weighed" against their own, they'd wake up and realize that the choice is not one any third party gets to make. The only one who has a say is the person bearing the burden.

    And that's NOT YOU, Chad.

    October 20, 2011 at 8:01 pm |
    • Chad

      Peoples rights conflict EVERY day, a mothers right to go out can land her in jail for child endangerment if she leaves an infant home alone.
      A parents responsibility for a child is an established legal principle.

      A tumor has no legal rights because it has not been granted one by the legal system.
      A human has rights because they have been granted by the legal system.

      The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a "child in utero" as a legal victim. Unfortunately, murder by abortion was exempted.

      October 20, 2011 at 9:03 pm |
  11. Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

    Oh, and Chad? British law is irrelevant, you twit. No one in the US cares what your courts say about anything, ya moron.

    October 20, 2011 at 7:07 pm |
  12. Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

    No, it does not just "take a vote". They founders were aware that a majority might attempt to remove the rights of a minority.

    You don't get to take away a woman's right to her body or its contents simply by a majority vote. Our laws don't work that way. And no, a fetus does not and cannot have equal rights, as you have already acknowledged, Chad, with your inability to answer my question about a hypothetical situation.

    There's a reason why R v. W has stood for such a long time. You think the conservative politicians care about it? They use you as pawns by bringing up abortion, yet it's still legal. They have no intention of making it illegal.

    October 20, 2011 at 6:32 pm |
  13. Reality

    From p. 78:

    As with most Christians, Mohler suffers from the Three B Syndrome, i.e. Bred, Born and Brainwashed in the flaws and fallacies of Christianity. The cure? Reading and rational thinking!!!!

    Synopsis of 21st Christianity based on the studies of Professors Crossan, Ludemann, Borg, Fredricksen et al:

    Jesus was an illiterate, Jewish, peasant/carpenter/simple preacher man who suffered from hallucinations and who has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth to a ma-mzer from Nazareth (Professor Bruce Chilton, in his book Rabbi Jesus). An-alyses of Jesus’ life by many contemporary NT scholars via the NT and related doc-uments have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian, Jewish and Pagan se-cts.

    The 30% of the NT that is "authentic Jesus" like everything in life was borrowed/plagiarized and/or improved from those who came before. In Jesus' case, it was the ways and sayings of the Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Hit-ti-tes, Canaanites, OT, John the Baptizer and possibly the ways and sayings of traveling Greek Cynics.
    earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

    For added "pizz-azz", Catholic theologians divided god the singularity into three persons and invented atonement as an added guilt trip for the "pew people" to go along with this trinity of overseers. By doing so, they made god the padre into god the "fil-icider".

    Current RCC problems:

    Pedo-ph-iliac priests, an all-male, mostly white hierarchy, atonement theology and original sin!!!!

    Luther, Calvin, Joe Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley, Roger Williams, the Great “Babs” et al, founders of Christian-based religions or combination religions also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of "pretty wingie thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immacu-late co-nceptions).

    Current problems:

    Adu-lterous preachers, pedophiliac clerics, "propheteering/ profiteering" evangelicals and atonement theology,–

    October 20, 2011 at 12:11 pm |
  14. brad

    babies are parasites. tape worms dont have rights either.

    October 20, 2011 at 7:23 am |
  15. Amy

    [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mctIZLn-W_Y&w=640&h=360]

    October 19, 2011 at 10:54 pm |
  16. MaryM

    What people of christian faiths need to consider is that many, many stories in the Bible were part numerous ancient belief systems thousands and thousands of years before christ or even the jewish religions. If you wish to do some research, you can start with the first chinese dynasty 5000 years ago to the sumerians and the hindus

    October 19, 2011 at 10:29 pm |
  17. Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

    Just looking at the mug shot of this snake oil salesman makes me shrivel. Why would anyone take the words of such a shill seriously? He looks like he could be selling cough drops impregnated with heroin!

    Really, why do you dolts even pretend to have brains if you're going to follow someone like him? Why not just have a lobotomy now and stop even attempting to have any intelligent thought?

    October 19, 2011 at 9:39 pm |
  18. Muneef

    If what I will paste here with happening to humans then I wonder what happens to animal pets?
    check that at BBC News;

    America's child death shame;
    Why is the problem of violence against children so much more acute in the US than anywhere else in the industrialised world, asks Michael Pet-it, President of Every Child Matters.

    Over the past 10 years, more than 20,000 American children are believed to have been killed in their own homes by family members. That is nearly four times the number of US soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15288865
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15193530

    Am not sure why then fight all this war over children abortion when no one wants to adopt or even take good care of them? Let be born dead than born alive suffering life by all means as unwanted heavy liability...!! Honestly it is very painful issue that is.results from uncontrolled $ex..adultery...

    We should thank the $ex Multi-industries for what is happening causing earth be flashed will illegitimate babies to suffer parentless and loveless life..!
    These companies are responsible for the increase of mankind and a decrees in the plate of food grown and shared...

    October 19, 2011 at 8:11 pm |
    • John Richardson

      Lots and lots of political control freaks on both the left and the right in the US love to use "protecting the children" as their rallying cry. What children most need protection from is their parents and other close relatives and family friends.

      October 19, 2011 at 8:22 pm |
    • Muneef

      John Rich.

      How you suppose that can be made ? Bottling children out of fear is another kill?! Morals&Strong tough laws only might be able to resolve some community problems but still you as a parent have to have extra care for your child but if the parent is the feared one then guess nothing will protect children other than GOD..

      October 20, 2011 at 9:25 pm |
  19. Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

    chad: as usual, you didn't answer the question. The fetus does not in fact have ANY legal rights. The only rights it has are those granted to it by the woman carrying it.

    How do you propose to preserve her rights if the fetus has equal rights.

    As to your simple-minded assertion that abortion should simply be illegal: not going to happen. Women have and will continue to have the right to end a pregnancy. Fetuses do not have the right to life.

    October 19, 2011 at 7:34 pm |
    • Mark from Middle River

      ....Yet. All it takes is a vote. If such groups band enough folks together it could become very different.

      October 19, 2011 at 10:21 pm |
    • Chad

      Every living human has a right to not be murdered.

      Does the mother have more rights just because she's bigger?

      October 19, 2011 at 10:48 pm |
    • Chad

      And, if you had read the site, you would have quickly realized that in a unique situation like pregnancy, where two rights are involved, they both must be weighed.

      here it is again: http://webjcli.ncl.ac.uk/2002/issue5/clucas5.html

      October 19, 2011 at 10:51 pm |
    • tallulah13

      No Chad. A woman gets to choose because she is a living, independent life form. A fetus is not. I'll make it easy for you: if a fetus cannot survive the death of the woman who is carrying it, it is not viable, and thus doesn't get a vote.

      October 21, 2011 at 12:14 am |
  20. Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

    Mykids, explain how a fetus would have equal rights with a person already born. Here's an example none of you has been able to answer. Suppose a woman is pregnant, and the doctor discovers a defect in the fetus that required surgery prior to birth. The woman does not wish to have surgery. If the fetus has equal rights, then whose rights prevail? If the surgery is denied, the fetus's rights have been abrogated; if the woman is forced to have surgery, her rights have been abrogated.

    It doesn't work.

    No one can be forced to give a single drop of blood to someone else-even if it's a case of life or death. How are you going to reconcile removing rights from someone because she is pregnant?

    October 19, 2011 at 6:24 pm |
    • chad

      An unborn child has rights as any other living thing.

      Rights of the child with respect to the mother during pregnancy present unique legal challenges but are really most similar to those faced by conjoined (aka Siamese) twins.

      see: http://webjcli.ncl.ac.uk/2002/issue5/clucas5.html for a good discussion.
      Killing unborn children should obviously be illegal

      October 19, 2011 at 6:34 pm |
    • tallulah13

      Chad, when you get pregnant you can decide for yourself.

      October 20, 2011 at 1:56 am |
    • chad

      @tallulah13 "Chad, when you get pregnant you can decide for yourself"

      The whole point of a legal system is to protect the rights of a person and not make that person dependent on the people around them to respect them.
      So, no, the mother doesnt get to abrogate the rights of the unborn child any more than I get to abrogate the rights of my born children.
      The legal system recognizes the parents responsibility for the child up to age 18 (I can be sued for the actions of my child for example). Are you saying that responsibility doesnt start until the baby is actually born?

      1. Are you aware that California has a fetal murder law, upheld by SCOTUS?
      2. Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a "child in utero" as a legal victim

      can you tell me why it is legal for a mother to murder her unborn baby, but no one else is allowed to?

      October 20, 2011 at 8:19 am |
    • Tallulah13

      Chad, until a fetus is viable outside of a woman's body, it is not a child. A fertilized egg is not a child. And a woman is not a slave to your personal beliefs.

      October 20, 2011 at 12:46 pm |
    • myklds

      @TTtPS

      No offense but I find your example a lil bit odd.

      Let us say that the mother's right to "say no" to the operation is granted, what would be the effect to the fetus? Would it be:

      A.) The fetus dies before birth. Or
      B.) The fetus carries the defect after birth.

      Should A occurs, the mother would still need to go undergo surgery to remove the fetus from her body.

      Should B occurs, the defect of the fetus will might be corrected still, even after birth.

      Though either way doesn't make any sense to me and your example had gave me a horribly hard time to figure something out answer(s) to your question but still I would try my best to shed some light on it.

      I think we should first identify what kind of rights of both side is in conflict? Is it:

      A.) Mother's right to live VS. Child's right to live. Or,

      B.) Child's right to live or Mother's right to say "NO".

      Should it be A, definitely it's the mother's right that must prevail.

      Should it be B, all I can say is that lawyers are barred to refuse to represent a client out of personal grudge or animosity, otherwise, they can be disbarred.

      When a person had chose to become lawyers, he/she also have to waive part of his/her right to say no.

      When a person had chose to become police or a military to serve his/her country and fellowmen he/she also have to waive half of his/her right to live.

      Both is what what we call Resposibility + Integrity.

      But when a woman had chose to screw-up or to be screwed and became pregnant, she needs to waive part/half both (say no and life) of such rights and even more.

      And that's what we call responsibility x (as product of) accountability.

      She couldn't anymore "say no" just for the sake of saying no.

      October 20, 2011 at 1:44 pm |
    • Tsulalah31

      @Talullah13

      First, a piece of info for you:

      zygote- a cell formed by the union of two gametes; broadly: the developing individual produced from a cell.

      Other Cell Biology Terms

      cytology, gamete, vacuole

      Fetus (noun)- an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especiallly AFTER ATTAINING BASIC STRUCTURAL PLAN OF IT'S KIND; specifically: A DEVELOPING HUMAN from usually two months after a conception to birth.

      Othe Embryology Terms:

      gravid, neonate, ontogeny, parturition

      Obviously biology and vocabulary is not your strong suit, it's the best time for you to shift to other course and interest. Try COSMETOLOGY.

      BTW, apparently, you are replying to chad's latest post. Are you sure that you have read his/her comments before you've punched those keyboard and becomes a complete idiot?

      October 20, 2011 at 2:26 pm |
    • chad

      "Fetus (noun)- an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especiallly AFTER ATTAINING BASIC STRUCTURAL PLAN OF IT'S KIND; specifically: A DEVELOPING HUMAN from usually two months after a conception to birth."

      Child (noun)-A young human being below the age of full physical development.

      Humans start physical development at inception,and more or less complete it at 18 years of age.

      October 20, 2011 at 3:41 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      mykids, your post proves my point. It doesn't matter whether it's a matter of life or death for the fetus. The woman carrying the pregnancy cannot be forced to have surgery anymore than can you be forced to give an organ to someone else without your rights being violated.

      It's not surprising you don't get the principle involved.

      October 21, 2011 at 10:39 am |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81
Advertisement
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.